Posted on 2/20/2014 1:54:30 PM by SoConPubbie
On Sean Hannity’s Fox News show on February 19, guest Anne Coulter and Hannity got into a heated discussion about the nature of the Tea Party on its fifth anniversary. While both are Tea Party supporters, Coulter differentiated between “people in America who call themselves Tea Partiers [who] are fantastic” and the “con men and scamsters” who “trick good Americans into sending them money, claiming we are fighting for you and they aren’t fighting for you.”
“Basically anyone who claims to be going after establishment Republicans, the key word there is ‘Republican,'” Coulter said. “If we don’t elect Republicans, I don’t care which Republican, we will not repeal Obamacare.” She continued, “The only way to repeal Obamacare is to elect Republicans. It is not to be fighting against Republicans.”
Coulter said that everyone has “got to read” Thomas Sowell’s column, ” Cruz Control,” published on Feb. 18, in which the prominent conservative economist and author criticizes Ted Cruz for weakening the Republican Party in order to remake it as a more pure conservative party in the long term. Sowell argues that such a strategy may bring America past the point of no return with respect to both Obamacare and the larger erosion of personal freedoms. She also pointed out that groups that attack Republicans would face less media scrutiny than groups that attack Democrats.
. . . .
When Hannity asked why the Republicans could not force the issue on the Keystone pipeline, the debt ceiling, and a host of other issues, and implied that the GOP had given up the fight, Coulter replied, “Fight to give them a majority then we will repeal Obamacare and have the keys to the pipeline.”
Come on now, boys – you turds used to drool over her ass like it was going out of style. Where’s the love?
Coulter is a RINO whore. I will never forgive her for supporting the budget 2011/debt ceiling negotiations. She’s a money grabbing bull shyster with a RINO “R” behind her name.
40 posted on 2/20/2014 12:26:36 PM by Chgogal (Obama “hung the SEALs out to dry, basically exposed them like a set of dog balls…” CMH)
Sorry I asked.
Both her and Limbaugh like to live amongst liberals and live the liberal lifestyle, but they play conservatives on the radio and TV.
39 posted on 2/20/2014 12:26:23 PM by Moonman62 (The US has become a government with a country, rather than a country with a government.)
The war is on. We need a coordinated counter offensive. This means that we must all rally around Ted Cruz. He is being viciously attacked by the left and the squishy middle. He’s obviously our point man in the war to restore the Republic.
Free Republic is Cruz Country.
Lets start printing the bumper stickers and t-shirts.
In the interim we need to change some dirty diapers in the GOP leadership.
78 posted on 2/20/2014 9:57:26 PM by P-Marlowe (There can be no Victory without a fight and no battle without wounds)
Just a reply to everyone in general.
Coulter’s point is that the country is in immediate danger of being steamrolled by something much worse than liberal republicans. While we are busy trying to change the “status quo”, we may lose the country in a way that is much, much worse than Rinos in D.C. Thomas Sowell related this to the Nazis in Germany. The majority was split, allowing the Nazis to take power and do their worst. The change in status quo may have to wait in order to put the brakes on the Dems, or we may reach a point of no return. And at that point, there won’t be any Republican party or Tea Party.
One thing Democrats have always been good at is biding their time. Coulter and Sowell are just saying that we need to be practical and get our priorities straight.
One is a trusted friend, with decades of national campaign experience. Another is a media consultant who worked on six of the last seven presidential races. Then there’s a trio of strategy and communications experts who have been together since George W. Bush’s 2004 run for the White House. What they have in common are deep-seated relationships with Governor Christie and connections that reach across the country. They form the nucleus of a political team so tight and loyal to the governor, that it’s difficult to get them to talk about anything – even their success in helping him win twice in a blue state.
When Christie decided to leave the U.S. Attorney’s Office and run for governor four years ago, he was able to quickly establish this team through existing relationships and connections they had to New Jersey. They were with him again this year when he broke records in securing a second term, and they’re viewed as people he will turn to if he runs for president.
With the governor winning more than 60 percent of the vote in a state dominated by Democrats – including a majority of Hispanics and women – speculation that Christie plans to run in 2016 has swelled. Every time he meets with a deep-pocketed donor or someone who worked on a presidential campaign, or appears on Sunday news shows, he makes headlines.
Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser to Arizona Sen. John McCain’s 2008 presidential campaign, said Christie has an “A-list campaign team” if he seeks the White House. It consists of Bill Palatucci, a longtime friend and one of Christie’s closest advisers; campaign strategist Mike DuHaime; campaign manager Bill Stepien; communications director Maria Comella; and ad man Russ Schriefer.
Christie also has the benefit of being chairman of the Republican Governors Association…
In an address to the Heritage Foundation entitled “What’s Next for Conservatives”, Senator Mike Lee said, “The conservative vision for America is not an Ayn Rand novel. It’s a Norman Rockwell painting, or a Frank Capra movie: a nation ‘of plain, ordinary kindness, and a little looking out for the other fellow, too.'” The comment, which received little attention when it was made back in October, harkens back to a traditional conservatism that stressed the importance of local institutions and relationships as a source of strength. As innocuous as that might seem to most conservatives, the mildly unfavorable comparison of Ayn Rand to anyone seems to be enough to send some of her devotees into a tizzy.
Enter Yaron Brook and Steve Simpson of the Ayn Rand Institute.
Taking to the pages of The Daily Caller to defend Rand from the Utah Senator’s statement, the two conclude that Mike Lee’s vision of America is no different than Barack Obama’s. As evidence, they point to a speech Lee gave in November at a Heritage Foundation anti-poverty forum. The Senator said:
“First, let’s be clear about one thing. The United States did not formally launch our War on Poverty in 1964, but in 1776: when we declared our independence, and the self-evident and equal rights of all men to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Brook and Simpson responded to Lee’s assertion by sarcastically asking, “American colonists fought the most powerful nation on earth as a precursor to a mid-20th century welfare program?”
It would be obvious to all but the most obtuse readers that it was not Lee’s intention to compare the American Revolution to LBJ’s War on Poverty. To anyone who cared to read beyond the cherry picked excerpt Brook and Simpson provided, Lee explicitly says what he means a few sentences later:
“From our very Founding, we not only fought a war on poverty – we were winning. The tools Americans relied on to overcome poverty were what became the twin pillars of American exceptionalism: our free enterprise economy and voluntary civil society.”
Are the luminaries at the Ayn Rand Institute denying that free enterprise and voluntary association have been the most effective tools in reducing poverty? I suppose that makes them no better than Obama.
It’s sad to see such knee jerk hostility to the idea that communal ties, beyond those that are the result of cold economic calculation, played an integral part of the success America enjoys. It’s also not very conservative.
While the Randians rightfully hold individual achievement as the primary building block of prosperity, they seem to think that it occurs in a vacuum defined by the size and scope of government. They’d have you believe that all the remarkable individuals of the world need in order to reach their potential is the absence of government.
But the truth is more complex than they’d lead you to believe. There are more conditions that contribute to the level of individual achievement in America than we can even begin to catalogue here. The social stability that provides the safe space in which the individual flourishes is not the result of abstract principles divined from a Rand novel. It is the result of millions of relationships, shared beliefs, and communal bonds or, as Edmund Burke famously put it, being “attached to the subdivision, to love the little platoon we belong to in society”.
Norman Rockwell’s ability to capture the spirit of Burke’s little platoons is what makes his work a more appropriate metaphor for what makes America great than anything Rand wrote. The idealized image of a family sitting around a Thanksgiving table says more about America in one image than Atlas Shrugged was able to say in 1,168 pages of dense text.
Yaron Brook and Steve Simpson would have you believe that attributing America’s success to strong communal bonds is a deviation from conservatism or the vision of the founders. To the contrary, denying them is the true deviation.
I want you to tell me where in the 1168 pages of text of Atlas Shrugged, or in thousands of other pages of her writings, Ayn Rand ever comes out against a voluntary civil society.
Lee’s initial remarks are easily misinterpretable by honest people. All that was needed was the clarification given. The rest is picking a fight with people that we don’t need to have.
2 posted on 12/26/2013 12:29:31 AM by FredZarguna (Mother pus bucket.)
>> where in the 1168 pages of text of Atlas Shrugged, or in thousands of other pages of her writing <<
Ironically, you just demonstrated while (sic) its foolish to tout her snoozefests as ideal for promoting the “free market”
3 posted on 12/26/2013 12:35:58 AM by BillyBoy (Liz Cheney’s family supports gay marriage. Do you?)
Actually, I don’t care much for Rand’s fiction. The 100 page manifesto in Galt’s Speech is all of Atlas one really needs to read, and if you take the politics straight, then the Objectivist or For The New Intellectual are much better.
That said, the irony of your gratuitously mean-spirited remark is that it re-enforces my position: you are picking a fight with people that you don’t need to pick, and indeed, cannot afford to pick.
If you think the country is so much on your side that you can alienate a single ally, you better get used to talking about Harry Reid as Majority leader until 2020, and President Hillary for eight years starting in 2016.
4 posted on 12/26/2013 12:46:19 AM by FredZarguna (Mother pus bucket.)
Let me be as clear as I can possibly be.
I am a Conservative. I don’t want Libertarians as an ally, as an political partner, or most likely as a friend.
We do not share the same values and pretending there is anything in common with our philosophies is pure bull..
Libertarians are Liberals at heart…
6 posted on 12/26/2013 12:53:52 AM by montanajoe
For sure Rand was against ‘looking out for the other fellow’ being forced on everyone’, but really she didnt have much time for voluntary charity either. She might have thought it should be allowed, but she quite clearly also thought it an utterly stupid thing to do.
20 posted on 12/26/2013 4:23:48 AM by Vanders9
“For sure Rand was against ‘looking out for the other fellow’ being forced on everyone’, but really she didnt have much time for voluntary charity either. She might have thought it should be allowed, but she quite clearly also thought it an utterly stupid thing to do. “
Yep. “Now that I’ve got mine screw you.”
28 posted on 12/26/2013 8:22:55 AM by OKSooner (“Like, cosmic, man.”)
You know, I’ve never had to do so little work on a thread. This one is literally writing itself. All I have to do is summon a clean-up crew to mop up the debris and sterilize the floor.
Time for one more – hmmmm – there IS no inequality! And If there IS, it’s all the Dems’ fault!
Posted on 1/6/2014 4:48:40 AM by markomalley
Desperate for a diversion from the disasters of Obamacare, the president has conjured up the old leftist “income inequality” cliché. His court-pundits complain that “the richest nation on earth is starting to resemble a banana republic,” according to The New Republic, while Berkeley Professor Robert Reich has thundered against “casino capitalism,” blaming it for “the greatest concentration of the nation’s income and wealth at the very top since the Gilded Age of the nineteenth century, with the richest 400 Americans owning as much as the bottom 150 million put together.” Democrats, no doubt cheered by left-over-leftist Bill de Blasio’s election as mayor of New York, and excited by his Occupy Wall Street rants, apparently believe that such class-warfare rhetoric is a political winner. So be prepared for more of the same, and for demands to raise the minimum wage and gouge even more money from the “millionaires and billionaires.”
Fretting over income inequality, however, has little to do with economic reality. It’s a statistical sleight-of-hand that counts only “money income” and ignores non-cash transfers in order to decry how much more income the top 1% are earning compared to everybody else. In fact, when the value of government transfers such as Medicaid and the Earned Income Tax Credit are included in calculating income, income inequality actually declined 1.8% between 1993 and 2009. Equally revealing is the fact that in 2005 those in the bottom 20% of earners consumed almost twice their income, again because of the value of non-cash transfers. And that doesn’t count the underground economy, everything from working for cash to more unsavory occupations. That’s why the statistical poor enjoy living standards higher than the average European. And that’s the real point––not how much the rich have, but how much everybody else does.
(snip bloated spew of trash)
Obviously, modern “income inequality” rhetoric is a political smokescreen, which explains its inconsistencies. We do not hear Obama and the Democrats decrying the bloated incomes of progressive actors, television talk-show hosts, rap moguls, or sports stars. Their demonization of Wall Street doesn’t stop them from accepting campaign contributions from investment bankers or working for Goldman Sachs after leaving government. Worse yet, they are completely indifferent to the assault on the Constitutional order this rhetoric represents, or the divisiveness sown among the citizens by stirring up destructive passions like envy and resentment. All they care about is keeping their own power and privilege no matter what the social and economic costs.
Of course, some are born more equal than others, like the Waltons.
What you choose to do with that equality your trust fund is up to you.
2 posted on 1/6/2014 4:52:35 AM by maddog55
The bottom of my classes in grade school, high school * college had the same atmosphere I had.
They had the same rooms, chairs, desks, teachers, books, and assignments.
They had the same heat, light, weather, and sports available that I did.
I did my hoework (sic). I turned in papers on time. I took the tests given to the whole classroom. I gave up a social life to take college classes at night for over 4 years. That extra education gave me the ability to be self-employed since about 1979. I still have clients, and I am well past Soc Sec age.
You work past SS age because you have to. Why might that be, now? Hmmmmm…
IF those who got the lowest grades had put some effort into school work instead of drinking & hanging out at the local dance halls, they might have done better also.
But enough about my cousins…
There already is ‘Affirmative Action Hiring” which gives extra points to a job applicant just because of their color or whatever.
They don’t EARN those points, and often, they also do NOT deserve them.
Telling a person who puts in over 60 hours a week keeping clients happy that they don’t deserve that hourly pay they are getting is a total insult. I actually was given the incentive to get more college courses well into my 30’s when I saw the worst worker in my section get all the raises I got & all the benefits. They missed work for a variety of reasons and certainly didn’t work very hard. I got disgusted & went to work for myself. I absolutely DID drop clients who I didn’t like or were nervous about their business habits. I wasn’t going to sign reports to the state or Federal government for them.
I own everything I have. All my property, vehicles, animals, furniture, ——everything. No mortgage—no car payment.